[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SANET-MG] food security
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MTWS.phpISIS Press Release 29/06/05
Making the World Sustainable
Mae-Wan Ho
Biophysics Group, Dept. of Pharmacy, King’s College, Franklin-Wilkins Bldg.
London SE1 9NN, UK.
Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 0XR, UK
E-mail: m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
Plenary lecture at Food Security in An Energy-Scarce World international
conference, 23-25 June 2005, University College, Dublin, Ireland.
A fuller version with references and figures are posted on ISIS Members’
website. Details here
Abstract
Decades of an "environmental bubble economy" built on the
over-exploitation of natural resources has accelerated global warming,
environmental degradation, depletion of water and oil, and brought
falling crop yields, precipitating a crisis in world food security with
no prospects for improvement under the business as usual scenario.
There is, nevertheless, a wealth of knowledge for making our food system
sustainable that not only can provide food security and health for all,
but can also go a long way towards mitigating global warming by
preventing greenhouse gas emissions and creating new carbon stocks and
sinks.
One of the most important obstacles to implementing the existing
knowledge is the dominant economic model of unrestrained, unbalanced
growth that has already failed the reality test. I describe a highly
productive integrated farming system based on maximising internal input
to illustrate a theory of sustainable organic growth as alternative to
the dominant model.
Current food production system due for collapse
World grain yield fell for four successive years from 2000 to 2003 as
temperatures soar, bringing reserves to the lowest in thirty years [1].
The situation did not improve despite a ‘bumper’ harvest in 2004, which
was just enough to satisfy world consumption. Experts are predicting [2]
that global warming is set to do far worse damage to food production
than "even the gloomiest of previous forecasts." An international team
of crop scientists from China, India, the Philippines and the United
States had already reported that crop yields fall by 10 percent for each
deg. C rise in night-time temperature during the growing season [3].
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted in 2001
that the earth’s average temperature would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 deg. C
within this century [4]. In 2003, a Royal Society conference in London
told us that the IPCC model fails to capture the abrupt nature of
climate change, that it could be happening over a matter of decades or
years [5]. In January 2005, a group based in Oxford University in the UK
predicts a greater temperature rise of 1.9 to 11.5 deg. C when carbon
dioxide level in the atmosphere, currently standing at 379 parts per
million, doubles its pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million
sometime within the present century [6].
The "environmental bubble economy" built on the unsustainable
exploitation of our natural resources is due for collapse [7] said
Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute. The task of turning our food
production system sustainable must be addressed at "war-time" speed.
He summarised the fallout of the environmental bubble economy succinctly
[8]: "..collapsing fisheries, shrinking forests, expanding deserts,
rising CO2 levels, eroding soils, rising temperatures, falling water
tables, melting glaciers, deteriorating grasslands, rising seas, rivers
that are running dry, and disappearing species."
In too many of the major food-production regions of the world, such as
the bread baskets of China, India and the United States, conventional
farming practices including heavy irrigation have severely depleted the
underground water [7, 8]. At the same time, world oil production may
have passed its peak [9]; oil price hit a record high of US$58 a barrel
on 4 April 2005, and is expected to top US$100 within two years [10].
This spells looming disaster for conventional industrial agriculture,
which is heavily dependent on both oil and water.
Our current food production system is a legacy of the high input
agriculture of the green revolution, exacerbated and promoted by
agricultural policies that benefit trans-national agribusiness
corporations at the expense of farmers [11, 12]. Its true costs are
becoming all too clear (see Box 1).
Box 1
True costs of industrial food production system
1 000 tonnes of water are consumed to produce one tonne of grain [13]
10 energy units are spent for every energy unit of food on our dinner
table [14, 15]
Up to 1 000 energy units are used for every energy unit of processed
food [16]
17% of the total energy use in the United States goes into food
production & distribution, accounting for more than 20% of all transport
within the country; this excludes energy used in import and export [17]
12.5 energy units are wasted for every energy unit of food transported
per thousand air-miles [18, 19]
Current EU and WTO agricultural policies maximise food miles resulting
in scandalous "food swaps" [20, 21]
Up to 25% of CO2, 60% of CH4 and 60% of N2O in the world come from
current agriculture [22]
US$318 billion of taxpayer’s money was spent to subsidize agriculture in
OECD countries in 2002, while more than 2 billion subsistence farmers in
developing countries tried to survive on $2 a day [11, 23]
Nearly 90% of the agricultural subsidies benefit corporations and big
farmers growing food for export; while 500 family farms close down every
week in the US [11]
Subsidized surplus food dumped on developing countries creates poverty,
hunger and homelessness on massive scales [11]
Benefits of sustainable food production systems for everyone
Getting our food production sustainable is the most urgent task for
humanity; it is also the key to delivering health, mitigating global
warming and saving the planet from destructive exploitation. As Gustav
Best, Senior Energy Coordinator of FAO pointed out [22], agriculture is
impacted by climate change, it contributes a great deal of greenhouse
gases directly, but properly done, it goes a long way towards mitigating
climate change.
The benefits of sustainable food systems are becoming evident [24] (see
Box 2). There are major opportunities to reduce energy use, to make our
food system much more energy efficient, and even to extract energy
through converting agricultural wastes into rich fertilizers to increase
productivity, that at the same time, reduces greenhouse gas emissions
while increasing carbon stocks and sinks.
Box 2
Some benefits of sustainable food production systems
2- to 7-fold energy saving on switching to low-input/organic agriculture
[17, 25]
5 to 15% global fossil fuel emissions offset by sequestration of carbon
in organically managed soil [26]
5.3 to 7.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide emission disappear with every tonne
of nitrogen fertilizer phased out [27]
Up to 258 tonnes of carbon per hectare can be stored in tropical
agro-forests [28], which in addition, sequester 6 tonnes of carbon per
hectare per year [29]
Biogas digesters provide energy and turn agricultural wastes into rich
fertilizers for zero-input, zero-emission farms [30]
625 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions prevented each year in
Nepal through harvesting biogas from agricultural wastes [31]
2- to 3-fold increase in crop yield using compost in Ethiopia,
outperforming chemical fertilizers [32]
Organic farming in the US yields comparable or better than conventional
industrial farming [33, 34], especially in times of drought [35]
Organic farms in Europe support more birds, butterflies, beetles, bats,
and wild flowers than conventional farms [36]
Organic foods contain more vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients,
and more antioxidants than conventionally produced foods [37-40]
1 000 or more community-supported farms across US and Canada bring $36m
income per year directly to the farms [41]
£50-78m go directly into the pocket of farmers trading in some 200
established local farmers’ markets in the UK [41]
Buying food in local farmers’ market generates twice as much for the
local economy than buying food in supermarkets chains [42]
Money spent with a local supplier is worth four times as much as money
spent with non-local supplier [43]
Dominant model unsustainable
There is a wealth of existing knowledge that could provide food security
and health for all and significantly mitigate global warming.
Unfortunately, our elected representatives are overwhelmingly committed
to the neo-liberal economic model that created the bubble-economy in the
first place. They lack the wisdom and the political will to make the
structural and policy change required for implementing the knowledge.
That is why the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) and the
Independent Science Panel (ISP) have launched a Sustainable World Global
Initiative to create an opportunity for scientists across the
disciplines to join forces with all sectors of civil society in a bid to
make our food system sustainable [44]. We aim to produce a comprehensive
report at the end of the year that will lay out the existing knowledge
base as well as the socioeconomic and political policy and structural
changes needed to implement sustainable food systems for all. The launch
conference takes place in UK Parliament 14 July 2005
(http://www.indsp.org/SustainableWorld2ndAnnouncement.php).
The dominant economic model glorifies competitiveness and unlimited
growth involving the most dissipative and destructive exploitation of
the earth’s natural resources that have laid waste to agricultural land
and impoverished billions.
A study for the International Food Policy Research Institute reveals
that each year, 10 million hectares of cropland worldwide are abandoned
due to soil erosion, and another 10 million hectares are critically
damaged by salination as a result of irrigation and/or improper drainage
methods. This amounts to more than 1.3 percent of total cropland lost
annually; and replacing lost cropland accounts for 60% of the massive
deforestation now taking place worldwide [45]. Clearing forests releases
their massive carbon stocks to the atmosphere, turning important carbon
stocks and sinks into sources. Some estimates have placed the total
carbon stock of secondary tropical forests as high as 418 tonnes of C
per hectare including soil organic carbon, and carbon is sequestered at
5 tonnes C per hectare per year [46]. Change in land use such as this
accounts for 14% of the global total greenhouse gas emission [4].
The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 3 billion people
are malnourished (lacking in calories, protein, iron, iodine and/or
vitamins A, B, C, and D), of which 850 million actually suffer from
hunger (protein-energy malnutrition) [47]. The principal cause of hunger
is poverty. Some 1.08 billion poor people in developing countries live
on $1 or less a day; of these, 798 million are chronically hungry.
Continued commitment to the dominant economic model – that has so
glaringly failed the reality test - is perhaps the greatest obstacle to
implementing sustainable food systems. There are already many success
stories from the grassroots, and I shall describe one of them [30]
briefly. It illustrates most concretely an alternative model of
sustainable, balanced growth that I have been elaborating over the past
8 years [48-51], and presented in its most definitive form recently in
collaboration with ecologist Robert Ulanowicz [52].
Environmental engineer meets Chinese peasant farmers
It may sound like a dream, but it is possible to produce a
super-abundance of food with no fertilizers or pesticides and with
little or no greenhouse gas emission. The key is to treat farm wastes
properly to mine the rich nutrients that can be returned to the farm, to
support the production of fish, crops, livestock and more; get biogas
energy as by-product, and perhaps most importantly, conserve and release
pure potable water back to the aquifers.
Professor George Chan has spent years perfecting the system; and refers
to it as the Integrated Food and Waste Management System (IFWMS) [53]. I
just call it "dream farm" [30].
Chan was born in Mauritius and educated at Imperial College, London
University in the UK, specializing in environmental engineering. He was
director of two important US federal programmes funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy in the US
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands of the North Pacific. On
retiring, Chan spent 5 years in China among the Chinese peasants, and
confessed he learned just as much there as he did in University.
He learned from the Chinese peasants a system of farming and living that
inspired him and many others including Gunter Pauli, the founder and
director of the Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI)
(www.zeri.org). Chan has worked with ZERI since, which has taken him to
nearly 80 countries and territories, and contributed to evolving IFWMS
into a compelling alternative to conventional farming.
The integrated farm typically consists of crops, livestock and
fishponds. But the nutrients from farm wastes often spill over into
supporting extra production of algae, chickens, earthworms, silkworms,
mushrooms, and other valuables that bring additional income and benefits
for the farmers and the local communities.
Treating wastes with respect
The secret is in treating wastes to minimize the loss of valuable
nutrients that are used as feed. At the same time, greenhouse gases
emitted from farm wastes are harvested for use as fuel.
Livestock wastes are first digested anaerobically (in the absence of
air) to harvest biogas (mainly methane, CH4). The partially digested
wastes are then treated aerobically (in the presence of air) in shallow
basins that support the growth of green algae. By means of
photosynthesis, the algae produce all the oxygen needed to oxidise the
wastes to make them safe for fish. This increases the fertilizer and
feed value in the fishponds without robbing the fish of dissolved
oxygen. All the extra nutrients go to increase productivity, which is
standing carbon stock, preventing carbon dioxide (CO2) going to the
atmosphere. Biogas is used, in turn, as a clean energy source for
cooking. This alone, has been a great boon to women and children [54],
above all, saving them from respiratory diseases caused by inhaling
smoke from burning firewood and cattle dung. It also spares the women
the arduous task of fetching 60 to 70 lb of firewood each week, creating
spare time for studying in the evening or earning more income. Biogas
energy also enables farmers to process their produce for preservation
and added value, reducing spoilage and increasing the overall benefits.
The system has revolutionized farming of livestock, aquaculture,
horticulture, agro-industry and allied activities in some countries
especially in non-arid tropical and subtropical regions. It has solved
most of the existing economic and ecological problems and provided the
means of production in the form of fuel, fertilizer and feed, increasing
productivity many-fold.
"It can turn all those existing disastrous farming systems, especially
in the poorest countries into economically viable and ecologically
balanced systems that not only alleviate but eradicate poverty." Chan
says [55].
Increasing the recycling of nutrients for greater productivity
The ancient practice of combining livestock and crop had helped farmers
almost all over the world. Livestock manure is used as fertilizer, and
crop residues are fed back to the livestock.
Chan points out, however, that most of the manure, when exposed to the
atmosphere, lost up to half its nitrogen as ammonia and nitrogen oxides
before they can be turned into stable nitrate that plants use as
fertilizer. The more recent integration of fish with livestock and crop
has helped to reduce this loss [56].
Adding a second production cycle of fish and generating further
nutrients from fish wastes has enhanced the integration process, and
improved the livelihoods of many small farmers considerably. But too
much untreated wastes dumped directly into the fishpond can rob the fish
of oxygen, and end up killing the fish.
In IFWMS, the anaerobically digested wastes from livestock are treated
aerobically before the nutrients are delivered into the fishponds to
fertilize the natural plankton that feed the fish without depleting
oxygen, thereby increasing fish yield 3- to 4-fold, especially with the
polyculture of many kinds of compatible fish feeding at different
trophic levels as practiced in China, Thailand, Vietnam, India and
Bangladesh. The fish produce their own wastes that are converted
naturally into nutrients for crops growing both on the water surface and
on dykes surrounding the ponds.
The most significant innovation of IFWMS is thus the two-stage method of
treating wastes. Livestock waste contains very unstable organic matter
that decomposes fast, consuming a lot of oxygen. So for any fish pond,
the quantity of livestock wastes that can be added is limited, as any
excess will deplete the oxygen and affect the fish population adversely,
even killing them.
Chan is critical of "erratic proposals" of experts, both local and
foreign, to spread livestock wastes on land to let them rot away and
hope that the small amount of residual nutrients left after tremendous
losses that damage the environment have taken place.
According to the US Environment Protection Agency, up to 70% of nitrous
oxide, N2O, a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of
280 (i.e., 280 times that of carbon dioxide) comes from conventional
agriculture [57]. Nitrous oxide is formed as an intermediate both in
nitrification – oxidising ammonia (NH3) into nitrate (NO3-) – and
denitrification, reducing nitrate ultimately back to nitrogen gas. Both
processes are carried out by different species of soil bacteria. Animal
manure could be responsible for nearly half of the N2O emission in
agriculture in Europe, according to some estimates; the remainder coming
from inorganic nitrate fertilizer [58]. Thus, anaerobic digestion not
only prevents the loss of nutrients, it could also substantially reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in the form of both methane
(harvested as biogas) and nitrous oxide (saved as nutrient).
Chan further dismisses the practice of composting nutrient-rich
livestock wastes [59], for this ends up with a low-quality fertilizer
that has lost ammonia, nitrite (NO) and nitrous oxide. Instead of mixing
livestock wastes with household garbage in the compost, Chan recommends
producing high-protein feeds such as earthworms from the garbage, and
using worm castings and garbage residues as better soil conditioners.
To close the circle, which is very important for sustainable growth,
livestock should be fed crops and processing residues, not wastes from
restaurants and slaughterhouses. Earthworms, silkworms, fungi, insects
and other organisms are also encouraged, as some of them are associated
with producing high value goods such as silk and mushrooms.
Proliferating lifecycles for greater productivity
The aerobic treatment in the shallow basins depends on oxygen produced
by the green alga Chlorella. Chlorella is very prolific and can be
harvested as a high-protein feed for chickens, ducks and geese.
When the effluent from the Chlorella basins reaches the fishpond, little
or no organic matter from the livestock waste will remain, and any
residual organic matter will be instantly oxidized by some of the
dissolved oxygen. The nutrients are now readily available for enhancing
the prolific growth of different kinds of natural plankton that feed the
polyculture of 5 to 6 species of compatible fish. No artificial feed is
necessary, except locally grown grass for any herbivorous fish.
The fish waste, naturally treated in the big pond, gives nutrients that
are effectively used by crops growing in the pond water and on the dykes
[60].
Fermented rice or other grain, used for producing alcoholic beverages,
or silkworms and their wastes, can also be added to the ponds as further
nutrients, resulting in higher fish and crop productivity, provided the
water quality is not affected.
Trials are taking place with special diffusion pipes carrying compressed
air from biogas-operated pumps to aerate the bottom part of the pond; to
increase plankton and fish yields.
Apart from growing vine-type crops on the edges of the pond and letting
them climb on trellises over the dykes and over the water, some
countries grow aquatic vegetables floating on the water surfaces in
lakes and rivers. Others grow grains, fruits and flowers on bamboo or
long-lasting polyurethane floats over nearly half the surface of the
fishpond water without interfering with the polyculture in the pond
itself. Such aquaponic cultures have increased the crop yields by using
half of the millions of hectares of fishponds and lakes in China. All
this is possible because of the excess nutrients created from the
integrated farming systems.
Planting patterns have also improved. For example, rice is now
transplanted into modules of 12 identical floats, one every week, and
just left to grow in the pond without having to irrigate or fertilize
separately, or to do any weeding, while it takes 12 weeks to mature. On
the 13th week, the rice is harvested and the seedlings transplanted
again to start a new cycle. It is possible to have 4 rice crops yearly
in the warmer parts of the country, with almost total elimination of the
back breaking work previously required.
Another example is hydroponic cultures of fruits and vegetables in a
series of pipes. The final effluent from the hydroponic cultures is
polished in earthen drains where plants such as Lemna, Azolla, Pistia
and water hyacinth remove all traces of nutrients such as nitrate,
phosphate and potassium before the purified water is released back into
the aquifer.
The sludge from the anaerobic digester, the algae, crop and processing
residues are put into plastic bags, sterilized in steam produced by
biogas energy, and then injected with spores for culturing high-priced
mushrooms.
The mushroom enzymes break down the ligno-cellulose to release the
nutrients and enrich the residues, making them more digestible and more
palatable for livestock. The remaining fibrous residues also can still
be used for culturing earthworms, which provide special protein feed for
chickens. The final residues, including the worm casting, are composted
and used for conditioning and aerating the soil.
Sustainable development & human capital
There has been a widespread misconception that the only alternative to
the dominant model of infinite, unsustainable growth is to have no
growth at all. I have heard some critics refer to sustainable
development as a contradiction in terms. IFWMS, however, is a marvellous
demonstration that sustainable development is possible. It also shows
that the carrying capacity of a piece of land is far from constant;
instead it depends on the mode of production, on how the use of the land
is organised. Productivity can vary three- to four-fold or more simply
by maximising internal input, and in the process, creating more jobs,
supporting more people.
The argument for population control has been somewhat over-stated by
Lester Brown [7, 8] and in several contributions to the present
conference predicting massive starvation and population crash as oil
runs out. I like the idea of "human capital" to counter that argument,
if only to restore a sense of balance that it isn’t population number as
such, but the glaring inequality of consumption and dissipation by the
few rich in the richest countries that’s responsible for the current
crises. The way Cuba coped with the sudden absence of fossil fuel,
fertilizer and pesticides by implementing organic agriculture across the
nation is a case in point [61]. There was no population crash; although
there was indeed hardship for a while. It also released creative
energies, which brought solutions and many accompanying ecological and
social benefits.
For the past 50 years, the world has opted overwhelmingly for an
industrial food system that aspired to substitute machines and fossil
fuel for human labour, towards agriculture without farmers. This has
swept people off the land and into poverty and suicide. One of the most
urgent tasks ahead is to re-integrate people into the ecosystem. Human
labour is intelligent energy, applied precisely and with ingenuity,
which is worth much more than appears from the bald accounting in Joules
or any other energy unit. This is an important area for future research.
Sustainable development is possible
Let me clarify my main message with a few diagrams. The dominant model
of infinite unsustainable growth is represented in Figure 1. The system
grows relentlessly, swallowing up the earth’s resources without end,
laying waste to everything in its path, like a hurricane. There is no
closed cycle to hold resources within, to build up stable organised
structures.
Figure 1. The dominant economic model of infinite unsustainable growth
that swallows up the earth’s resources and exports massive amounts of
wastes and entropy
In contrast, a sustainable system is like an organism [48-52], it closes
the cycle to store as much as possible of the resources inside the
system, and minimise waste (see Figure 2). Closing the cycle creates at
the same time a stable, autonomous structure that is self-maintaining,
self-renewing and self-sufficient.
Figure 2. The sustainable system closes the energy and resource use
cycle, maximising storage and internal input and minimising waste,
rather like the life cycle of an organism that is autonomous and
self-sufficient
In many indigenous integrated farming systems, livestock is incorporated
to close the circle (Figure 3), thereby minimizing external input, while
maximising productivity and minimizing wastes exported to the environment.
Figure 3. Integrated farming system that closes the cycle thereby
minimizing input and waste
The elementary integrated farm supports three lifecycles within it,
linked to one another; each lifecycle being autonomous and
self-renewing. It has the potential to grow by incorporating yet more
lifecycles (Figure 4). The more lifecycles incorporated within the
system, the greater the productivity. That is why productivity and
biodiversity always go together [62]. Industrial monoculture, by
contrast, is the least energy efficient in terms of output per unit of
input [51], and less productive in absolute terms despite high external
inputs, as documented in recent academic research [63].
Figure 4. Increasing productivity by incorporating more lifecycles into
the system
Actually the lifecycles are not so neatly separated, they are linked by
many inputs and outputs, so a more accurate representation would look
something like Figure 5 [49, 50, 52].
Figure 5. The many-fold coupled lifecycles in a highly productive
sustainable system
The key to sustainable development is a balanced growth that’s achieved
by closing the overall production cycle, then using the surplus
nutrients and energy to support increasingly more cycles of activities
while maintaining internal balance and nested levels of autonomy, just
like a developing organism [49, 50, 52]. The ‘waste’ from one production
activity is resource for another, so productivity is maximised with the
minimum of input, and little waste is exported into the environment. It
is possible to have sustainable development after all; the alternative
to the dominant model of unlimited, unsustainable growth is balanced
growth.
The same principles apply to ecosystems [52] and economic systems [50,
51] that are of necessity embedded in the ecosystem (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Economic system coupled to and embedded in ecosystem
Deconstructing money and the bubble economy
Economics immediately brings to mind money. The circulation of money in
real world economics is often equated with energy in living systems. I
have argued however, that all money is not equal [50, 51]. The flow of
money can be associated with exchanges of real value or it can be
associated with sheer wastage and dissipation; in the former case, money
is more like energy, in the latter case, it is pure entropy. Because the
economic system depends ultimately on the flow of resources from the
ecosystem, entropic costs can either be incurred in the economic system
itself, or in the ecosystem, but the net result is the same.
Thus, when the cost of valuable (non-renewable) ecosystem resources
consumed or destroyed are not properly taken into account, the entropic
burden falls on the ecosystem. But as the economic system is coupled to
and dependent on input from the ecosystem, the entropic burden exported
to the ecosystem will feedback on the economic system as diminished
input, so the economic system becomes poorer in real terms.
On the other hand, transaction in the financial or money market creates
money that could be completely decoupled from real value, and is pure
entropy produced within the economic system. This artificially increases
purchasing power, leading to over-consumption of ecosystem resources.
The unequal terms of trade, which continues to be imposed by the rich
countries of the North on the poor countries of the South through the
World Trade Organisation, is another important source of entropy. That
too, artificially inflates the purchasing power of the North, resulting
in yet more destructive exploitation of the earth’s ecosystem resources
in the South.
It is of interest that recent research in the New Economics Foundation
shows how money spent with a local supplier is worth four times as much
as money spent with non-local supplier [43], which bears out my
analysis. It lends support to the idea of local currencies and the
suggestion for linking energy with money directly [64]. It also explains
why growth in monetary terms not only fails to bring real benefits to
the nation, but end up impoverishing it in real terms [65, 66].
Lester Brown argues [7] that the economy must be "restructured" at
"wartime speed" by creating an "honest market" that "tells the
ecological truth". I have provided a sustainable growth model that shows
why the dominant model fails, and why telling the ecological truth is so
important.
Acknowledgement
I am indebted to FESTA for inviting me to present a lecture at the
conference, Food Security in An Energy-Scarce World, which resulted in
the present paper. It benefited a great deal from the formal
presentations as well as discussions with Richard Douthwaite, Folke
Gunther, Colin Hines, Julian Darley, David Fleming, James Bruges, Bruce
Darrell and numerous others.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION,
ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.